Dwarf planet could illuminate the dark sector

A dwarf-planet candidate called UX25 and its tiny satellite could provide the first evidence of a new cosmological model that includes antigravity, say Alberto Vecchiato and Mario Gai of the Astrophysical Observatory of Turin in Italy. The model dispenses with concepts such as dark matter, dark energy and cosmic inflation, and the astronomers say that it could be tested by observing the motion of the two objects as they move through the outer solar system.

In 1915 Albert Einstein's fledgling general theory of relativity received a major credibility boost when it was used to explain a discrepancy in Mercury's orbit that could not be accounted for by Newtonian physics alone. Now, nearly a century later, Vecchiato and Gai have calculated that UX25 and its tiny satellite – which orbit the Sun in the Kuiper belt beyond Neptune – could be used as a "natural laboratory" to test an ambitious new model of the universe.

Gravitational charges

Developed by CERN physicist Dragan Hajdukovic, the model is based upon the concept that empty space – also known as the quantum vacuum – is not really empty at all. Instead, it consists of "virtual" matter and antimatter particles that constantly blink in and out of existence. Hajdukovic's idea is that these particles have opposing gravitational charges, similar to positive and negative electrical charges. He further predicts that in the presence of a gravitational field, virtual particles in the quantum vacuum will generate a secondary gravitational field that has an amplifying effect. The end result is that galaxies and other objects will appear to have stronger gravitational fields than would be predicted by the mass of their stars alone – a discrepancy that most astronomers explain by invoking the hypothetical and mysterious substance known as dark matter.

In Hajdukovic's new model of the universe, there is also no need for dark energy, the enigmatic force that scientists think is causing the universe to expand at an accelerated rate. The idea is that if virtual particles have gravitational charges, then space–time itself can exert a kind of pressure that causes objects to repel each other.
His theory would also negate the need for cosmic inflation, a theorized rapid swelling of the early universe when space–time itself expanded faster than the speed of light. "My theory provides encouraging initial answers to many different fundamental questions in physics," says Hajdukovic.

Distant elliptical orbits

Hajdukovic has previously suggested that his theory could be tested if a minor planet with a small satellite that has an elliptical orbit can be found. The system would need to be located far from the Sun and other massive bodies.

Now, Vecchiato and Gai suggest that Hajdukovic's model can be tested by using existing ground and space telescopes to observe the UX25 system – which is about 43 times farther from the Sun than is the Earth. "The properties of quantum vacuums described in Hajdukovic's theory would apply an additional [gravitational] force on UX25, perturbing the orbit of the system," Vecchiato explained to physicsworld.com.

Wobbling moon

Hajdukovic's model predicts that the wobble, or "precession rate", of UX25's tiny moon around the dwarf planet should be larger than is predicted by classical physics. Where Newtonian physics predicts a precession rate of 0.0064 arc seconds – too small to be observed with current methods – Hajdukovic's theory predicts that the rate should be 0.23 arc seconds per period – just enough to be detectable by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and the soon-to-be-launched James Webb Space Telescope.

According to Vecchiato and Gai, a large ground-based telescope such as the Very Large Telescope might also be able to make the necessary observations of UX25.

Evidence for Hajdukovic's theory would result in a dramatic change in perspective for physicists, says Gai. "Most scientists today think quantum physics is mainly restrained to the microscopic world...In this case, the natural microscopic behaviour of empty space would result in a cumulative, long-range effect acting up to cosmic scales."

About the author

37 comments

At Least As Good As "Dark" Matter And Energy

Good luck. I hope this is not another faster than light neutrino situation. The vacuum could certainly provide an antigravity effect. But great proof is needed. Peer reviewed over a long period of time.

Just no possibility of existence. We deal with a comprehensible universe not an incomprehensible one.

Don't be too hasty, peerally. There's papers out there like Inhomogeneous and interacting vacuum energy. Einstein described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space in his 1920 Leyden Address, and in the Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity he said the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy. Also take note of the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy momentum tensor. Think of a gravitational field as a pressure-gradient in space, and think of space as having an innate pressure: it expands like a stress-ball when you open your fist.

Endo and Duffield

Thanks for the views expressed. No one in our circumstances can outdo another. The facts are that, if you read Einstein's main relativity papers, to my appreciation at least,he has to a significant extent explained what is gravitation. Gravitation as a force and a field does not really exist and what is very interesting is that special relativity about which far less physicists talk about is from our physical realities point of vies more fundamental than GR Both SR and GR have the same quantum root cause. My SAJS 104 paper has added a lot about the fundamental nature of both SR and GR. When the issue will be finally resolved it will be very good for the new physics but there will be no fabulous integration of QM and GR as is widely expected. Therefore an independent antigravitation in my analysis cannot exist for gravitation is an effect and not a real force. The story I am talking about is amongst the most fascinating that exists in science.

Just no possibility of existence. We deal with a comprehensible universe not an incomprehensible one.

Don't be too hasty, peerally. There's papers out there like Inhomogeneous and interacting vacuum energy. Einstein described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space in his 1920 Leyden Address, and in the Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity he said the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy. Also take note of the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy momentum tensor. Think of a gravitational field as a pressure-gradient in space, and think of space as having an innate pressure: it expands like a stress-ball when you open your fist.

Thanks for the views expressed. No one in our circumstances can outdo another. The facts are that, if you read Einstein's main relativity papers, to my appreciation at least,he has to a significant extent explained what is gravitation. Gravitation as a force and a field does not really exist and what is very interesting is that special relativity about which far less physicists talk about is from our physical realities point of vies more fundamental than GR Both SR and GR have the same quantum root cause. My SAJS 104 paper has added a lot about the fundamental nature of both SR and GR. When the issue will be finally resolved it will be very good for the new physics but there will be no fabulous integration of QM and GR as is widely expected. Therefore an independent antigravitation in my analysis cannot exist for gravitation is an effect and not a real force. The story I am talking about is amongst the most fascinating that exists in science.

Just no possibility of existence. We deal with a comprehensible universe not an incomprehensible one.

Don't be too hasty, peerally. There's papers out there like Inhomogeneous and interacting vacuum energy. Einstein described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space in his 1920 Leyden Address, and in the Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity he said the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy. Also take note of the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy momentum tensor. Think of a gravitational field as a pressure-gradient in space, and think of space as having an innate pressure: it expands like a stress-ball when you open your fist.

This is a direct result of research done in complete subjectivity, that which produces results tailored to a theory that is made into existence the nanosecond that an observer of this universe is willing to look for it. Every possible theory does, yet does not exist, all at once within a twinkle of a neutrino.

Thanks for the views expressed. No one in our circumstances can outdo another. The facts are that, if you read Einstein's main relativity papers, to my appreciation at least,he has to a significant extent explained what is gravitation. Gravitation as a force and a field does not really exist and what is very interesting is that special relativity about which far less physicists talk about is from our physical realities point of vies more fundamental than GR Both SR and GR have the same quantum root cause. My SAJS 104 paper has added a lot about the fundamental nature of both SR and GR. When the issue will be finally resolved it will be very good for the new physics but there will be no fabulous integration of QM and GR as is widely expected. Therefore an independent antigravitation in my analysis cannot exist for gravitation is an effect and not a real force. The story I am talking about is amongst the most fascinating that exists in science.

Just no possibility of existence. We deal with a comprehensible universe not an incomprehensible one.

Don't be too hasty, peerally. There's papers out there like Inhomogeneous and interacting vacuum energy. Einstein described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space in his 1920 Leyden Address, and in the Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity he said the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy. Also take note of the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy momentum tensor. Think of a gravitational field as a pressure-gradient in space, and think of space as having an innate pressure: it expands like a stress-ball when you open your fist.

This is a direct result of research done in complete subjectivity, that which produces results tailored to a theory that is made into existence the nanosecond that an observer of this universe is willing to look for it. Every possible theory does, yet does not exist, all at once within a twinkle of a neutrino.

Therefore supporting my theory of subjective observational quantum mechanics. Everything is directly related and able to be explained to the extent in which a theory exists which will support energy mass in the dimension of that in which the observation was viewed in. There are infinite dimensions, all opening and closing in the blink of a universe. Read my book.

Gravity is not a force...

Well to my way of thinking accepting Einstein’s “explanation” for gravity only means that you will not be the one who discovers that he was wrong. I just can’t imagine that physicists of the 31st Century will have the same “explanation” for this force as we do today (oh, that’s right it isn’t really a force is it? Sure it’s not). And General Relativity (GR) doesn’t do a very good job with all those nasty galaxy rotation curves now does it? Well there is always “dark matter” for that. And how about the accelerating expansion of the universe, GR sure saw that one coming! Thank goodness for that Cosmological Constant…funny coincidence though how the strength of the repulsion is so close to the expected gravitational attraction.

Well at least the Principle of Equivalence, the very foundation stone of GR, is on solid ground...so far. But let’s see what happens next year when AEgIS at CERN directly measures the gravitational acceleration of anti-hydrogen.

Does Dark Energy Gravitate ?

In all the papers I've read over the last decade on dark energy, seems to be roughly a 50/50 split on this question. Surely it must, as the CC can form a horizon in concert with a black hole horizon, derived from GR & manifesting as the Schwarzschild-deSitter metric. Others state matter of factly, No, dark energy does not gravitate.By sourcing anti-gravity to virtual anti-particles, that would seem to produce a null gravitational interaction from virtual vacuum pairs, unless a partial screening effect is involved.

Yes, There Is A Possibility

Just no possibility of existence. We deal with a comprehensible universe not an incomprehensible one.

Don't be too hasty, peerally. There's papers out there like Inhomogeneous and interacting vacuum energy. Einstein described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space in his 1920 Leyden Address, and in the Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity he said the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy. Also take note of the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy momentum tensor. Think of a gravitational field as a pressure-gradient in space, and think of space as having an innate pressure: it expands like a stress-ball when you open your fist.

The explanations of dark matter with modification of gravity face a problem with both cold dark matter sector (filaments of dark matter between galaxies and even so-called dark matter galaxies without any visible matter at all), both in hot dark matter sector (the viscous behavior of dark matter during collision of galaxies in Bullet cluster). Otherwise, the Heydukovic theory looks quite physical from dense aether model perspective, if you know, where to apply it.

We deal with a comprehensible universe...

Just no possibility of existence. We deal with a comprehensible universe not an incomprehensible one.

"We deal with a comprehensible universe not an incomprehensible one."

Speak for yourself.

I don't comprehend it, suspect that trying to comprehending it in it's entirety will be endless (albeit delightful) quest, and see abundant evidence that those who claim that it's comprehensible differ rather greatly in their interpretations of what they "know to be true" (which is precious little) about it.

Regardless, the entire discussion is cool, and I often learn more from reading the contributors verbally duking it out than I do from the articles.

"You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori.

..................We deal with a comprehensible universe not an incomprehensible one."

Speak for yourself.

I don't comprehend it, suspect that trying to comprehending it in it's entirety will be endless (albeit delightful) quest, and see abundant evidence that those who claim that it's comprehensible differ rather greatly in their interpretations of what they "know to be true" (which is precious little) about it.

Regardless, the entire discussion is cool, and I often learn more from reading the contributors verbally duking it out than I do from the articles.

...Well at least the Principle of Equivalence, the very foundation stone of GR, is on solid ground...

It was an "enabling" principle. It applies to an infinitesimal region, a region of zero extent. So actually it doesn't really apply. Have a look at the Synge quote on page 20 of arxiv.org…0204044 :

"The Principle of Equivalence performed the essential office of midwife at the birth of general relativity, but, as Einstein remarked, the infant would never have gone beyond its long clothes had it not been for Minkowski’s concept [of space-time geometry]. I suggest that the midwife be buried with appropriate honours and the facts of absolute space-time faced."

princip of equivalence means

...Well at least the Principle of Equivalence, the very foundation stone of GR, is on solid ground...

It was an "enabling" principle. It applies to an infinitesimal region, a region of zero extent. So actually it doesn't really apply. Have a look at the Synge quote on page 20 of arxiv.org…0204044 :

"The Principle of Equivalence performed the essential office of midwife at the birth of general relativity, but, as Einstein remarked, the infant would never have gone beyond its long clothes had it not been for Minkowski’s concept [of space-time geometry]. I suggest that the midwife be buried with appropriate honours and the facts of absolute space-time faced."

This study is quite relevant to Hajdukovic theory. The calculations including a term for the gravitational potential in the quantum electrodynamical description of the photons suggest that photons are delayed by a factor that is proportional to the fine structure constant.

Hadjukovic's model needs to be tested.

Although gravitation is still of very mysterious nature, the model of Hadjukovic needs to be tested, although there are lots of odds against it. The popping in and out of virtual particles while a natural occurrence because of the nature of our universe, cannot have such dramatic effects on the macroscale structure of the universe I did also look at the occurrence of other chronological events at the earliest moments of the universe for clues but I could not identify any connected with gravity, much less with charged gravity. In my findings gravity was still an effect and not a force per se. Hadjukovic has something to test and we will see. To search for an all inclusive concept of the origin of the universe is what we need badly.

Well to my way of thinking accepting Einstein’s “explanation” for gravity only means that you will not be the one who discovers that he was wrong. I just can’t imagine that physicists of the 31st Century will have the same “explanation” for this force as we do today (oh, that’s right it isn’t really a force is it? Sure it’s not). And General Relativity (GR) doesn’t do a very good job with all those nasty galaxy rotation curves now does it? Well there is always “dark matter” for that. And how about the accelerating expansion of the universe, GR sure saw that one coming! Thank goodness for that Cosmological Constant…funny coincidence though how the strength of the repulsion is so close to the expected gravitational attraction.

Well at least the Principle of Equivalence, the very foundation stone of GR, is on solid ground...so far. But let’s see what happens next year when AEgIS at CERN directly measures the gravitational acceleration of anti-hydrogen.

Thank you! Makes me think the far reaches of the universe could be antimatter.

Anit-gravity.

The idea that antimatter responds to gravity opositely to normal matter is obvious from Dirac's description of anti-matter has "holes" in the sea of virtual matter particles. The virtual particles go down, whlie the anti-matter hole goes up. Of course, gravity as curved space time suggests both will follow the same path. The question is: which is right?Researchers have been looking fro anti-gravity in anti-matter for decades, but the experiment has been virtually impossible. Collecting and cooling anti-hydrogen offers a chance to make the measurement.This idea sounds like vacuum polarization: virtual matter is pushed away (like charges repel), while virtual anti-matter is attracted. This creates more mass and a stronger gravity at long distances. However, it would create an opposite effect nearby. This should be observable in distorted orbits and rates of precession.

New planets

This idea sounds like vacuum polarization: virtual matter is pushed away (like charges repel), while virtual anti-matter is attracted. This creates more mass and a stronger gravity at long distances. However, it would create an opposite effect nearby. This should be observable in distorted orbits and rates of precession.

This has been confusing me since I first read the article. Could anyone explain why we expect that via gravity virtual matter is repelled from the source of the external gravitational field and virtual anti-matter is attracted?

As I see it, since gravity is an attractive force, the virtual matter would be attracted to the source of the external gravitational field, and likewise the virtual anti-matter (by experiencing anti-gravity) would be repelled. Since matter gravitationally attracts matter, doesn't this mean that like gravitational charges attract, and in this sense exhibit the opposite behavior of electric charge? Wouldn't this create a vacuum polarization opposite to the one described in the article, in which the vacuum polarization has a dampening effect on the total gravitational field rather than an amplifying one?

Antimatter Antigravity

Part of the problem with Hajdukovic’s theory in the mind of the vast majority of physicists is that they have experimental evidence for the existence of virtual electron/positron pairs surrounding all electric charges, as well as virtual u, d, and s quark/antiquark pairs within Protons and Neutrons. Now if the positrons and antiquarks had antigravity this should have been revealed in precise tests of Einstein’s Equivalence Principle (the exact equality of gravitational and inertial mass). Bottom line: If antimatter has antigravity not only would General Relativity but the Quantum theory of virtual particles as well would have to be consigned to the trash bin of history. The vast majority of physicists believe such an outcome is extremely unlikely and thus conclude that antimatter antigravity is “impossible”.

But nature may have had other plans. In experimental physics it doesn’t matter what the vast majority of theoretical physicists believe – only experiment counts (though what experiments actually get conducted are often, but not always, dictated by accepted theory). In one of those experimental exceptions, next year the AEgIS Group at CERN will, for the first time, directly measure the gravitational acceleration of anti-hydrogen. That will end, one way or the other, 60 years of speculation (starting with the discovery of the anti-proton in 1955) as well as years of conspiracy theory (the US experimentally confirmed antigravity decades ago but has kept it secret) concerning the nature of antimatter gravity.

Matter antimatter gravitation problematic?

There has never actually existed in my mind any correlation between matter and gravitational attraction. That is what we are led to believe superficially. The correlation is really between gravitational attraction and energy. So the antimatter/matter problem vis a vis gravitation disappears.

Relativity is the best-tested theory we've got. And like peerally said, energy gravitates. I'm sorry, but the notion that antimatter might fall up really is hype. It's deliberate too, because those guys know that energy gravitates. Regardless of whether it takes the form of matter or antimatter or light or something else.

Relativity is the best-tested theory we've got. And like peerally said, energy gravitates. I'm sorry, but the notion that antimatter might fall up really is hype. It's deliberate too, because those guys know that energy gravitates. Regardless of whether it takes the form of matter or antimatter or light or something else.

Thank you for setting me straight John. For a while there I was taken in by those conniving experimental physicists at CERN! (Perhaps you should let them know that you are on to their scam). As for me, I will just keep repeating, “energy gravitates, therefore positrons fall down”, “energy gravitates, therefore positrons fall down”… so as not to again fall prey to their evil anti-gravity seduction.

I wouldn't lie to you Dino. Ask around about it. Something else that gets hyped is "the mystery of the missing antimatter". They never say that the baryon asymmetry is matched by a lepton asymmetry, or that positronium is like light hydrogen. Nor do they mention that the B-sub meson oscillates between matter and antimatter. People really do peddle mystery to curry favour with the public. That's just how it is. People like mysteries.

Matter and antimatter

John, you know the Dirac equation and its implications for the creation of "matter" and "antimatter" in equal quantities. The CP=violation to break this equality happened via a certain process on the way in the evolution of the universe. This CP-violation existes for the leptons, but not for the baryons and you know this, because "they" found it and passed the information to you and others. Moreover, although positronium is a two-body system like hydrogen, the positronium is a matter and antimatter combination that blows up after a while caused by the quantum constraints, while hydrogen is stable matter and matter combination. In fact, one does not really know as to why an electron and a positron blow up, when brought togather.

I wouldn't lie to you Dino. Ask around about it. Something else that gets hyped is "the mystery of the missing antimatter". They never say that the baryon asymmetry is matched by a lepton asymmetry, or that positronium is like light hydrogen. Nor do they mention that the B-sub meson oscillates between matter and antimatter. People really do peddle mystery to curry favour with the public. That's just how it is. People like mysteries.

Energy gravitates

John, just wish to say that this is the main conclusion of my SAJS 104 paper as written in the last paragraph of Conclusion: Relativistic gravitational effects are totally correlated with energy whether SR or GR.

Relativity is the best-tested theory we've got. And like peerally said, energy gravitates. I'm sorry, but the notion that antimatter might fall up really is hype. It's deliberate too, because those guys know that energy gravitates. Regardless of whether it takes the form of matter or antimatter or light or something else.

Energy to enregy

One pumps 1.02 MeV energy into the vaccum and the vacuum and the photon coulomb interaction produces a positron and an electron of 0.51 MeV, each with a 1/2 hbar spin spinning in the opposite directions (knots are nothing but spins!)and the opposite charges. When brought together, they blow up leaving behind nothing but the intial pumped-into energy. As both of them are fermions, the question is as to how close they have to be to annihilate themselves. Is it enough that there spins overlap for this self-destruction?

How close? I'm not sure. Maybe it's the electron Compton wavelength divided by 2π. But remember it's quantum field theory, the electron's field is what it is. So what we're really talking about is how close the centre of the electron is to the centre of the positron. For an analogy think in terms of a cyclone and an anticyclone rather than billiard-ball particles.

Peddling Mystery?

I wouldn't lie to you Dino. Ask around about it. Something else that gets hyped is "the mystery of the missing antimatter". They never say that the baryon asymmetry is matched by a lepton asymmetry, or that positronium is like light hydrogen. Nor do they mention that the B-sub meson oscillates between matter and antimatter. People really do peddle mystery to curry favour with the public. That's just how it is. People like mysteries.

where the number inside the parenthesis is the particles baryon number; (+1/3) for quarks, (-1/3) for anti-quarks and (0) for everything else: with the six possible combinations showing the nature of the gravitational interaction between them.

If there is no actual experiment to disprove such an hypothesis (and this is only one possibility), then surely testing the gravitational acceleration of anti-hydrogen is not “peddling mystery”.

There is no actual experiment for that because nobody's ever seen a free quark. But every physicist knows about E=mc², and that whether you put a photon or a proton or an antiproton into a box, you increase the rest mass of that system. And when you do this, you increase the active gravitational mass. So every physicist knows that antimatter doesn't fall up. They know it's just cargo-cult hype for impressionable kids.

There is no actual experiment for that because nobody's ever seen a free quark. But every physicist knows about E=mc², and that whether you put a photon or a proton or an antiproton into a box, you increase the rest mass of that system. And when you do this, you increase the active gravitational mass. So every physicist knows that antimatter doesn't fall up. They know it's just cargo-cult hype for impressionable kids.

John,

Obviously not EVERY physicist knows 'it'. Otherwise, AEgIS would have never been built and ready to go into operation next year at CERN and there would not be a multitude of Universities and Research institutions involved with it. However, I do agree that the vast majority of physicists BELIEVE that anti-hydrogen will fall down. Under General Relativity (GR) inertial and gravitational mass are equal – and since we know from experiment that antimatter has positive inertial mass it also must have positive gravitational mass – according to GR.

But you and ‘they’ don’t ‘know’ that antimatter has positive gravitational mass from experiment; ultimately you just believe it. Like these people:

“When we physicists look at the equations of Albert Einstein, we cry. We cry because they are so gorgeous.” – Michio Kaku

“Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity changed forever our ideas about space and time. It is so beautiful, it has to be right” – Stephen Hawking

Just people John, not G-d (and that includes Einstein). To know, really KNOW, and not just believe, we need to actually put an anti-proton in the box. No use going on about it, I will find out in a year or two. You, of course, already "know'.

Experiment needed

Dino,Right, the AEgIS project at CERN is on the way for the gravity action on the trapped antiproton. The experiment is worth doing even, though, it is going to be quite tough, because mastering the technique should have spin off elsewhere. However, it is rather clear that the about 1GeV energy(scalar entity!) of the antiproton and that of the proton will react to the gravity in the same way.